The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 15, 2019, 09:22 PM   #76
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,928
Quote:
It is dangerous to have the Mall Ninjas and Wanna Be's running around armed with no training. It is a disaster going to happen.
I'm not thrilled with the idea of people carrying guns without having made any significant effort to develop the proper skills and safe handling.

There certainly are the odd negative incidents here and there (unintentional discharges, primarily)--but they are few and far between and generally pretty low-impact.

It's like the predictions that concealed carry laws were going to result in "blood in the streets". Have there been some unfortunate incidents as the result of permit holders? Yeah, but nothing that would remotely validate the dire predictions of disaster that preceded passage of the laws.

Same with this. People can worry about anything they want to, but trying to find even just one or two of these predicted "disasters" caused by permit holders "running around armed with no training" is pretty eye-opening. It obviously could happen, but unless there's some kind of conspiracy to cover them up, they aren't happening. It's really not something we need to lose sleep over.

If you want to get spun up about something, get worried about all the doctors running around in the U.S. killing people via malpractice. They are highly trained and yet the 1.1 million doctors in the U.S. kill around a quarter of a million people a year.

Compare that with around 21 million permit holders in the U.S. who according to this (probably not terribly objective) website have murdered 1325 persons since 2007.

That means a highly trained doctor, on average, is about 40,000-50,000 times more likely to kill someone than the average untrained permit holder.

BUT, I'm willing to be convinced. There are something like 21 million permit holders in the U.S., the vast majority of whom likely have little to no training. With that many in circulation, if there's any valid reason to worry about them running amok, it shouldn't be hard to come up with a few incidents where they have caused "disasters" due to their lack of training.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old September 15, 2019, 09:37 PM   #77
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
I've mentioned this before, maybe this thread (I don't want to reread the whole thing). I've done a lot of courses, somewhere around 24. Multiday, vehicles, fire teams, even force on force with UTM. I did them for me, not for any requirement. I think if people want to approach firearms seriously they should seek additional training.

That said, the notion that we can make up some training requirements for concealed carry holders and they will be ready for mass shooters is both unrealistic and unwanted if we think about it. What's enough training? Who defines what is enough? I've done more firearms training than most members of my local law enforcement. Should that be the minimum requirement? If so, what about the person that frankly doesn't have the disposable income or free time to do that? Do they suddenly lose their right to carry? Now we're in the realm of income discrimination.

There's a general response after a lot of these incidents that if only someone had been carrying then he or she could have stopped the shooter. That's assuming that there wasn't someone there that was carrying. With the number of mass shootings at this point even taking into account how few people will carry, my guess is there have been people there carrying. Discretion is the better part of valor.

I'm of the opinion that concealed carry doesn't stop these shootings. These people do this well aware that law enforcement will show up eventually. Some surrender when that happens, some don't. I don't think they're afraid of concealed carry holders and I'm not electing myself to stop mass shootings. I carry to protect myself and my family, as do most that carry. If someone wants to do more that's certainly a choice, but phrasing it as we will do something builds an expectation that, as John pointed out, frankly hasn't been met. I don't think it's the argument we want to make and I don't think it's necessary either in terms of why concealed carry should be allowed.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
TunnelRat is offline  
Old September 15, 2019, 10:56 PM   #78
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.G. Terry
It is dangerous to have the Mall Ninjas and Wanna Be's running around armed with no training. It is a disaster going to happen.
To address this issue, do you advocate revising the Second Amendment to add a required training component before citizens can exercise their right to keep and bear arms?
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old September 16, 2019, 05:49 AM   #79
J.G. Terry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2014
Posts: 577
Analogies cloud the issue

Analogies cloud the issue: There are reminders that the Hiller decision reversed the previous policy on firearm ownership. Court decisions can be reversed, right? Hiller was 5 to 4 right? What does the 2A have to do with Roscoe Cain threatening Beto?

Analogies: Using these things cloud discussions. The supposed number of deaths caused by doctors have what to do with concealed carry? What does the Second Amendment have to do with toaster ovens? Using these fake histories and made up stuff is a way of powering others down in discussions. Is the doctor caused deaths more or less than the babies delivered. Did the Doctors have carry permits?

I do recall sometime ago some information on permit holders that did commit murder etc. Lots of conflicting data on the net. Here comes that submarine with screen doors sailing by. Some of that data looks cooked. Check it out for your self.
__________________
Intentionally Antagonizing Another MemberInsults and Ad Hominems

Last edited by J.G. Terry; September 16, 2019 at 06:09 AM.
J.G. Terry is offline  
Old September 16, 2019, 06:47 AM   #80
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
Statistics aren't analogies.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
TunnelRat is offline  
Old September 16, 2019, 07:29 AM   #81
Lohman446
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
The more requirements you put into place to allow someone to exercise their rights the more you limit those rights to those of means (time and money).

I mean I would prefer that those exercising their right to free speech be well educated (college is not the bi-directional equivalent of education), articulate, and follow a reasonable line of logic. I'm not out there advocating that it be a criminal offense to exercise your right without these things.
__________________
A coward believes he will ever live if he keep him safe from strife: but old age leaves him not long in peace
though spears may spare his life. - The Havamal (Bray translation)
Lohman446 is offline  
Old September 16, 2019, 07:30 AM   #82
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
Let's see -- you wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by J.G. Terry
It is dangerous to have the Mall Ninjas and Wanna Be's running around armed with no training. It is a disaster going to happen.
In response to that statement, I asked:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
To address this issue, do you advocate revising the Second Amendment to add a required training component before citizens can exercise their right to keep and bear arms?
You then posted:

Quote:
Originally Posted by J.G. Terry
Analogies: Using these things cloud discussions. The supposed number of deaths caused by doctors have what to do with concealed carry? What does the Second Amendment have to do with toaster ovens? Using these fake histories and made up stuff is a way of powering others down in discussions. Is the doctor caused deaths more or less than the babies delivered. Did the Doctors have carry permits?
While we're talking about clouding the issue: what does any of your post number 79 have to do with my question? You consider allowing people to carry without training (how MUCH training?) to be dangerous, but the Second Amendment doesn't say anything about training. It says the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." How do you reconcile the inherent conflict between your statement, and the specific and direct language of the Second Amendment?

I'm not against training. I'm a certified trainer for multiple NRA courses. I'm happy to provide as much training as anyone wants. But ... it should be voluntary. The Second Amendment doesn't require it. From your posts, I can't figure out what your position is.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old September 16, 2019, 07:54 AM   #83
Lohman446
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
Quote:
but the Second Amendment doesn't say anything about training. It says the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." How do you reconcile the inherent conflict between your statement, and the specific and direct language of the Second Amendment?
It depends on how one looks at the "well regulated militia" portion. While Heller has been interpreted to indicate an individual right there is a reasonable argument to be made that "well regulated", in the language of the day, had to do with training as well as provisioning.

I still disagree with the argument that allows the limitation of rights and thus sets them as the rights of the wealthy but its not an impossible argument to make.
Lohman446 is offline  
Old September 16, 2019, 09:44 AM   #84
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lohman446
It depends on how one looks at the "well regulated militia" portion. While Heller has been interpreted to indicate an individual right there is a reasonable argument to be made that "well regulated", in the language of the day, had to do with training as well as provisioning.
Emphasis added.

That portion isn't a limitation on the right described.

It is true that some who seek to disregard the right will argue that it means something other than what it says, that it only means "so long as a well regulated militia is necessary …", but that some people argue that doesn't make it reasonable.

It's true that training is linked in that you can't train if you've nothing with which to train, but that wouldn't mean the right would depend on having received instruction before the right vests.

A well read citizenry being necessary to the health of a representative government, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

Would anyone read that to mean that if we no longer think being well read is important, then the "shall not" may be disregarded?

Last edited by zukiphile; September 16, 2019 at 10:29 AM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old September 16, 2019, 10:39 AM   #85
Lohman446
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
The argument has less to do with the need for a militia though I think you will find Jefferson would have argued the health of our union as it was conceived was and continues to be dependent on a militia capable of military force.

The argument had to do with the term well regulated and the use of the term regulated as it related to training. It should be noted regulated also has to do with provisioning and the arms "allowed" to the normal citizen are not in line with what would be required to provision a modern militia.

I don't accept the argument that well regulated allows for a training mandate in the end and its not consistent with modern court rulings. I also would like to reiterate that training mandates limit the exercise of the right to those with means and that is not consistent with the rest of the framing of the Constitution.
Lohman446 is offline  
Old September 16, 2019, 11:10 AM   #86
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Lohman, I dispute none of your historical observations, and you've been clear that you don't personally endorse a training limitation on the exercise of the right.

My resistance is to the idea that it would be reasonable to argue to incorporate as current limitations characteristics of 18th century militia practice. The words of the Amendment itself don't suggest that, yet it seems to belong to a family of arguments that note how things have changed since ratification in order to take an eraser to it figuratively.

Last edited by zukiphile; September 16, 2019 at 12:36 PM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old September 16, 2019, 12:02 PM   #87
J.G. Terry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2014
Posts: 577
2A-Not trying to rattle cages

We were taught on several levels of education that the 2A was a state right. The right to defend states against tyranny was the purpose of the 2A. My history books speaks of the Redcoats going Lexington and Concord to disarm the Committees of Safety. It would appear that the Committees of Safety were seen as a organized militia. The 2A was there to assure protection from a tyrannical central power be it domestic or foreign. This belief is widespread and is to become again an issue. The rest of the story is that the entire 2A issue as it stands today is four decades old NRA propaganda. I did not make this up! Do some home work.

Personally, I have considerable time and money invested in firearms etc. I see this is a individual personal issue. I'll take my own course. I see some of the pro-gun supporters nationally as a menace. It may be difficult to defend the 2A as a totally permissive proposition concerning anything goes since it, no matter how crazy, is a Constitutional Right. Let's see how all this plays put.

I'm not even going to this training thing any further than in my previous post.
__________________
Intentionally Antagonizing Another MemberInsults and Ad Hominems

Last edited by J.G. Terry; September 16, 2019 at 12:14 PM.
J.G. Terry is offline  
Old September 16, 2019, 12:45 PM   #88
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
I'd suggest you do some homework on D.C. vs. Heller with regards to the purpose of the Second Amendment.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
TunnelRat is offline  
Old September 16, 2019, 12:52 PM   #89
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.G. Terry
It may be difficult to defend the 2A as a totally permissive proposition concerning anything goes since it, no matter how crazy, is a Constitutional Right.
Who in mainstream elective politics or the judiciary does that?

Quote:
The rest of the story is that the entire 2A issue as it stands today is four decades old NRA propaganda. I did not make this up!
That it isn't your original thought doesn't mean the charge is valid.

A reading of the language of the 2d Am. to mean what the words say can't have been a four decades old NRA project. Reading text for what it says predates the NRA, the COTUS and the country itself. That the clarification leading up to and resulting in the Heller decision occurred during the political push to make firearms possession illegal shouldn't be a surprise. What is the need for a clear understanding of the terms of the amendment when infringement is rare?

It isn't as if americans were inured to numerous and grossly intrusive firearms restrictions and the NRA simply decided to change American culture. The culture once threatened reacted. It may seem a small point, but the NRA weren't actually in the lead on clarification of the meaning and scope of the 2d Am. That's the product of other organizations, academics and judges.

Quote:
I'm not even going to this training thing any further than in my previous post.
A disdain for other peoples' exercise of a right on which you rely is hard to defend.

Last edited by zukiphile; September 16, 2019 at 01:00 PM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old September 16, 2019, 01:00 PM   #90
J.G. Terry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2014
Posts: 577
Just a description of what out there.

I am trying to tell folks what's going on and some of the origins of these beliefs. My suggestion is do some homework on what anti-gun organizations are saying. If anybody has a problem with what those groups are saying confront them. This preaching to the choir is not working.

There is a piece from Associated Press on the current NRA Board Meeting in today's paper. This included the decision to move the meeting. This article includes a brief description of the scandal. Also included are some of the people trying to clean up the mess. Most importantly there is a brief portion on what's happening in Washington currently.
__________________
Intentionally Antagonizing Another MemberInsults and Ad Hominems
J.G. Terry is offline  
Old September 16, 2019, 01:09 PM   #91
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by JG Terry
I am trying to tell folks what's going on and some of the origins of these beliefs. My suggestion is do some homework on what anti-gun organizations are saying. If anybody has a problem with what those groups are saying confront them. This preaching to the choir is not working.
Let's not escape into cliché.

Addressing the assertions you make isn't preaching to the choir, and asking that responses be addressed to others isn't a sensible way to discuss them.

If you think it is dangerous for people, Mall Ninjas and Wanna Bes, to be armed, you may have discovered the purpose of being armed. It's fair for people to wonder whether the untrained have the right, or whether you believe a certificate that one has completed a safety course should be a prerequisite to exercise.
zukiphile is offline  
Old September 16, 2019, 01:53 PM   #92
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lohman446
It depends on how one looks at the "well regulated militia" portion. While Heller has been interpreted to indicate an individual right there is a reasonable argument to be made that "well regulated", in the language of the day, had to do with training as well as provisioning.
As Zukiphile has already mentioned, the Heller decision made it very clear, through a thorough discussion of the grammar and linguistics, that the militia clause in the Second Amendment is a non-binding prefatory clause that serves only as in introduction, and does not alter or affect the meaning of the primary body of the amendment.

Even if it did, "well regulated" as used in the Second Amendment meant something more akin to "let's get everyone on the same page." If you look at the language of the original Militia Act that followed the 2A by a very few years, it discusses the equipment that each militiaman was expected (actually, required) to bring with him to drills.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Unite...ion/Chapter_33

Quote:
That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter,How to be armed and accoutred. provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. 1803, ch. 15.That the commissioned officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger and espontoon, and that from and after five years from the passing of this act, all muskets for arming the militia as herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound.
So "well regulated" didn't mean that every militiaman was to be an ace sharpshooter (in those days, that was probably more or less assumed). It meant "trained" in the sense of drilled and equipped so that each company of militia was prepared to function as a military (or, at least, quasi-military) body, able to understand and respond to orders, and all similarly equipped and provisioned.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old September 16, 2019, 02:20 PM   #93
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.G. Terry View Post
I am trying to tell folks what's going on and some of the origins of these beliefs. My suggestion is do some homework on what anti-gun organizations are saying. If anybody has a problem with what those groups are saying confront them. This preaching to the choir is not working.



There is a piece from Associated Press on the current NRA Board Meeting in today's paper. This included the decision to move the meeting. This article includes a brief description of the scandal. Also included are some of the people trying to clean up the mess. Most importantly there is a brief portion on what's happening in Washington currently.
Right, and people have responded to what you've said with facts that you've flatly ignored and then gone on to bring up other points, only slightly related.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
TunnelRat is offline  
Old September 16, 2019, 02:28 PM   #94
J.G. Terry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2014
Posts: 577
Let's see what happens

Let's see how these current court challenges to laws like in Chicago turn out. Heller was a decision that could be reversed. Heller reversed previous decisions. Like it or not and scream like a mashed cat the 2A carpet could be yanked from beneath our feet. Heller was a court decision if I recall correctly. That decision can be reversed. Right? No amount of rationalization or justification can change that fact.

If you do not like what I am saying use of the ignore button is encouraged.
__________________
Intentionally Antagonizing Another MemberInsults and Ad Hominems
J.G. Terry is offline  
Old September 16, 2019, 02:33 PM   #95
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by JG Terry
Heller reversed previous decisions.
Have you read it?

I don't mean that as a "gotcha". Your comment prompts the question, and it isn't unusual for people to have strong opinions on decisions without having read them, e.g. Roe, Citizens United.

Last edited by zukiphile; September 16, 2019 at 02:55 PM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old September 16, 2019, 02:35 PM   #96
J.G. Terry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2014
Posts: 577
Heller is a court decision and can be reversed right?
__________________
Intentionally Antagonizing Another MemberInsults and Ad Hominems
J.G. Terry is offline  
Old September 16, 2019, 02:41 PM   #97
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by JG Terry
Heller is a court decision and can be reversed right?
This evasion suggests that you've not read it. Of course, if my inference is wrong, I invite correction. Why assert that Heller reversed a prior decision?

Of course, Heller can be reversed as can the decisions regarding the Skokie march, Citizens United or any other case. And? What do you make of the observation that a Supreme Court decision can be reversed?
zukiphile is offline  
Old September 16, 2019, 02:46 PM   #98
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.G. Terry View Post
Let's see how these current court challenges to laws like in Chicago turn out. Heller was a decision that could be reversed. Heller reversed previous decisions. Like it or not and scream like a mashed cat the 2A carpet could be yanked from beneath our feet. Heller was a court decision if I recall correctly. That decision can be reversed. Right? No amount of rationalization or justification can change that fact.



If you do not like what I am saying use of the ignore button is encouraged.
It has nothing to do with liking or not liking what you're saying. It has to do with the fact that you seem to be saying you're here to help us, yet you don't seem interested in real discussion and when flaws in your arguments are pointed out you sidestep them. That doesn't end up coming across as altruistic.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
TunnelRat is offline  
Old September 16, 2019, 04:40 PM   #99
J.G. Terry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2014
Posts: 577
Ok, I have not mastered the quotes on this forum. I'll do better. I'm not interested in fighting some battles. Often these things are statements disguised as questions. I don't play that game. When I have said the same thing five different ways there is not interested in doing it the sixth. If you don''t like the way I do things fire up that ignore button.

Heller: I had said my piece and that was it. No, I don't care to discuss Heller.

Altruistic?:Not trying here to help people but to engage in the thread. Some of the comments are so far from my understanding or experience I do not want to offend nor deal with the statement etc. Remember, an arguments is when we/us have to say what we want to say more than once.

Facts: Frankly some of these "facts" miss being facts by some considerable distance.
__________________
Intentionally Antagonizing Another MemberInsults and Ad Hominems

Last edited by J.G. Terry; September 16, 2019 at 04:54 PM.
J.G. Terry is offline  
Old September 16, 2019, 05:05 PM   #100
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.G. Terry
Heller is a court decision and can be reversed right?
Heller is a court decision and, as such, can be reversed. But it is a decision of the Supreme Court, and such decisions are not overturned lightly. They are overturned only when and if a later court determines that a preceding decision was manifestly erroneous. That's possible, of course, but you make it sound like something that's virtually guaranteed to happen ... which it's not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by J.G. Terry
Heller was a decision that could be reversed. Heller reversed previous decisions.
I don't think Heller reversed any previous SCOTUS decisions, but I've been wrong before. Which previous SCOTUS decision(s) did Heller reverse, and on what grounds was/were the reversal(s) made?

From the Wikipedia article on the Heller decision:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distri...mbia_v._Heller

Quote:
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
"None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation." In other words, no preceding case contradicts this ruling. That's another way of saying "We're not overruling any preceding decisions." But it also emphasizes that the Supreme Court places a lot of weight on precedent. If they didn't, Mr. Scalia wouldn't have been so careful to spell out how preceding decisions were NOT at odds with the majority decision he wrote for the Heller case.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.12201 seconds with 8 queries